Human beings
prefer freedom to collectivism and tyranny. Only those in complete denial
disregard the negative consequences of policies that suppress liberty. Consider
North Korea versus South Korea. And recall that in Berlin during the Cold War
era, people weren’t shot trying to go from West to East—not that anyone tried
anyway. Finally, in the course of the last 55 years of the Castro regime, very
few people jumped on rickety boats in Miami seeking a better life in Havana.

For those who
follow what is happening in the United States—both in politics and with the
economy—we can be grateful that even in the most oppressive economic
environment—think your typical liberal city such as San Francisco or
Portland—people remain remarkably free compared to citizens in many other parts
of the world.

One of the
freedoms that we Americans enjoy is the freedom to travel. A citizen’s ability
to travel from state to state has been deemed by the United States Supreme
Court to be a fundamental right that can only be restricted in the narrowest of
circumstances. Part of this right is more than just going to another state or
country and then returning. It means the freedom to leave. Permanently.

In California,
we all know people who have bailed out for places where the taxes are low,
regulations are light and the cost of living reasonable. But the evidence here
is not just anecdotal.

In a recent
piece in the Washington Times, economist Stephen Moore presents an amazing
statistic: “Of the 10 blue states that Hillary Clinton won by the largest
percentage margins—California, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Maryland, New
York, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut—every single one of
them lost domestic migration (excluding immigration) over the last 10 years
(2004-14).”

But here’s the
kicker: The exact opposite is true in those states that supported Donald Trump
by the largest margin. Those states—including Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma,
North Dakota, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Idaho—saw net domestic
in-migration.

So what are the
characteristics of those Hillary-supporting states that are bleeding productive
citizens? Here, Moore doesn’t mince words: “They are the loser states. They are
all progressive. High tax rates. High welfare benefits. Heavy regulation.
Environmental extremism. Super minimum wages. Most outlaw energy drilling. The
whole left-wing playbook is on display in the Hillary states. And people are
leaving in droves.”

For those of us
who follow these often wonkish statistics, let’s be clear. We’re not
gloating—we’re unhappy. California is a great state with virtually unlimited
potential. But the demographic trends are not pretty and when one considers the
crushing debt load that looms like a fatal disease, it’s hard not to be deeply
concerned.

Is there
anything that can save the Golden State? In a very weird way, it is Trump
himself who might save California by revitalizing the national economy.

That would be
ironic indeed. But if that doesn’t happen and the great “California Exodus”
continues, the economic death spiral will accelerate. And unlike East Berlin,
when productive California citizens decide to leave, there is nothing the
Progressives can do to stop them.